User talk:CzechOut
HTTPS in SVG namespaces Hello, I know JavaScript Review Tool warns you whenever it sees an http:// link in the script code, but https:// links in SVG namespaces are not what WDS icons are using and, as I mentioned here before, they are not going to throw Mixed Content errors as they are not used for schema retrieval. Did the Content Review team decide to keep changing these links nonetheless? Cheers! -- Cube-shaped 16:52, August 15, 2018 (UTC) :Heh, mea culpa! Thanks for the reminder! Gotta learn to avoid dental work while doing JS Review! Reversions should have all gone through by now. -- CzechOut 21:08, August 15, 2018 (UTC) Notiplus Hey, How exactly does Notiplus violate GDPR? I don't think I've seen any explanation of it. -- Cube-shaped 22:51, August 22, 2018 (UTC) :JSRT team felt its cookie handling was concerning. -- CzechOut 22:57, August 22, 2018 (UTC) :: So basically, if the cookie storage is changed to localStorage it won't be violating GDPR? There's absolutely no reason for Notiplus to be using cookies anyways. -- Cube-shaped 22:59, August 22, 2018 (UTC) :::Hey, we're still mulling this thing over, but we presumptively think that localStorage (or just storage) is not any better, legally, than a cookie. So I've temporarily hit the "pause" button and returned the code to a blank state. Please give us some more time to investigate the issue, consult with other colleagues, and come up with a better alternative. Thanks. :) -- CzechOut 15:16, August 23, 2018 (UTC) ::::Hey again :) Thanks for your patience as we discussed this a bit more deeply. After some further consultation we think a solution like this would probably be the easiest way to satisfy GDPR and involve the least work. Please incorporate something like: if ($.cookie('tracking-opt-in-status') 'accepted') { // user opted in to tracking so do something here } ::::...and then resubmit. Thanks! -- CzechOut 18:52, August 23, 2018 (UTC) Rejection of MassRename Hello, I noticed MassRename's revision was rejected recently (I'm assuming it was you to reject it, but please point me to the Staff member that did if you weren't) after (not counting tidying ones). No reasoning was provided on the talkpage or user's Community Central Message Wall, so I was just curious why was it rejected. It has been approved after I made a completely unrelated to any of the previous changes, as the security issue was in there since 18th August. Kind regards. -- Cube-shaped 21:40, August 28, 2018 (UTC) :Sorry if I confused you! It was a quirk of having multiple submissions of the same script in the JS Review tool simultaneously. Since your revision came only a minute or two thereafter, I decided it would just be a lot faster and simpler to approve your revision, rather than explaining what had happened to a now-out-of-date revision. -- CzechOut 22:07, August 28, 2018 (UTC) :: Oh, interesting. Thanks for the explanation. -- Cube-shaped 22:08, August 28, 2018 (UTC) Notice Just see right up of CSSForTheColorBlind--＊Lac＊(♪) 09:48, February 25, 2019 (UTC)